p71924506
/
linux_old1
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

cifs: avoid unused variable and label 

The newly introduced cifs_clone_file_range() function produces
two harmless compile-time warnings:

cifsfs.c: In function 'cifs_clone_file_range':
cifsfs.c:963:1: warning: label 'out_unlock' defined but not used [-Wunused-label]
cifsfs.c:924:20: warning: unused variable 'src_tcon' [-Wunused-variable]

In both cases, removing the extraneous line avoids the warning.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Fixes: c6f2a1e2e5f8 ("vfs: pull btrfs clone API to vfs layer")
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
This commit is contained in:
Arnd Bergmann 2015-12-08 16:18:51 +01:00 committed by Al Viro
parent ffa0160a10
commit 8c36e9dfe7
1 changed files with 0 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
View File

@ -921,7 +921,6 @@ static int cifs_clone_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t off,
struct inode *target_inode = file_inode(dst_file); struct inode *target_inode = file_inode(dst_file);
struct cifsFileInfo *smb_file_src = src_file->private_data; struct cifsFileInfo *smb_file_src = src_file->private_data;
struct cifsFileInfo *smb_file_target = dst_file->private_data; struct cifsFileInfo *smb_file_target = dst_file->private_data;
struct cifs_tcon *src_tcon = tlink_tcon(smb_file_src->tlink);
struct cifs_tcon *target_tcon = tlink_tcon(smb_file_target->tlink); struct cifs_tcon *target_tcon = tlink_tcon(smb_file_target->tlink);
unsigned int xid; unsigned int xid;
int rc; int rc;
@ -960,7 +959,6 @@ static int cifs_clone_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t off,
/* force revalidate of size and timestamps of target file now /* force revalidate of size and timestamps of target file now
that target is updated on the server */ that target is updated on the server */
CIFS_I(target_inode)->time = 0; CIFS_I(target_inode)->time = 0;
out_unlock:
/* although unlocking in the reverse order from locking is not /* although unlocking in the reverse order from locking is not
strictly necessary here it is a little cleaner to be consistent */ strictly necessary here it is a little cleaner to be consistent */
unlock_two_nondirectories(src_inode, target_inode); unlock_two_nondirectories(src_inode, target_inode);